Chemical Weapon… Or Plant Extract?

I have to take exception with my Danger Room colleague David Hambling. In a recent article for the UK Guardian, he notes the development an experimental US Army munition that may (gasp!) stray toward the dark side of chemical warfare. Or maybe it’s just another conventional munition with an unconventional mission.

Is the XM1063 a stink bomb, a banana skin, or a bad trip? It’s hard to know. XM1063 is the [US Army’s new] weapon which will "suppress" people without harming them, as well as stopping vehicles in an area 100m square. But is it a violation of chemical weapons treaties, or a welcome move towards less destructive warfare using non-lethal weapons?

…The first part of the weapon is an artillery round – or as the army puts it, "a non-lethal personal suppression projectile" – fired from a 155mm howitzer, with a range of 28km. It scatters 152 small non-explosive submunitions over a 1-hectare area; as each parachutes down, it sprays a chemical agent… [to] "suppress, disperse or engage personnel."

But these seem unlikely choices, because their effects only last minutes, and could wear off before friendly forces arrive. They could also face a legal challenge: the 1997 Chemical Weapons Convention prohibits the use of riot control agents in warfare.

"The matter is further complicated if pepper gas was used as the irritant since this is a plant toxin," says Steve Wright of Leeds
Metropolitan University. "Such toxins are explicitly banned."

Not exactly. When the US Senate ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention, it specifically identified incendiaries, herbicides, and riot control agents as exceptions to the CWC. That is to say, US forces can use riot control agents and not be in contempt of the CWC. They do need the
President to make an explicit decision to allow such use, however.

The question of what goes into the projectile is the only interesting one. If it’s an RCA [riot control agent] fill, there is the question of whether that does push past even the presidential executive order limiting the military use of RCAs on the battlefield for defensive purposes only. If it’s not a tear gas, but a malodorant, as David suggests, then the lawyers will get involved as to whether it is a legitimate non-lethal incapacitant that could be allowed under the treaty or if this steps too close to the line as a potential chemical weapon. If it causes permanent incapacitation or possible death, then yeah, probably won’t cut it (and no, pyschological injuries don’t count).

Still, it seems like a great idea to me. There is no problem with a "few minutes" of incapacitation; that’s what repeated volleys of artillery are for. You want to suppress an insurgent rocket launcher, mortar, or sniper nest in an urban environment? Send in a few rounds and smoke them out, without hurting the civilians. It could be a great addition to the arsenal, but again, let the lawyers work out the details.